Chamber and committees

Good morning. Does COSLA have any information or data nationally on the issue of female councillors voluntarily standing down after one or perhaps two terms? In my local authority area, five female councillors voluntarily stood down at the last election, and two of them were elected in by-elections, so they did not even have a full five-year term. That is a huge number for just one local authority. Do you have any data on the position nationally?

I apologise for arriving late, convener, and to you, minister, if you covered this point in your opening statement.

The committee understands that the revised draft of national planning framework 4 is due out shortly. Has there been an analysis of any impact that the bill might have on NPF4 and on the timeframe for approval?

We have talked about cultural and financial barriers, and I want to touch on legal barriers as well. Those who work for a local authority are disqualified from standing for election, and there are disqualifications around bankruptcy and other things. Are the disqualifications appropriate? Given the context of the cost of living crisis and interest rates shooting through the roof, councillors could become bankrupt because of the levels of remuneration. Why should someone who has that lived experience be disqualified from becoming a councillor? Why should someone who has the experience of working in, say, a social care setting be disqualified from becoming a councillor, when someone who provides care in the independent sector and is contracted by a council can stand for election?

Particularly in the central belt, some councillors work for local authorities that are right next door, but that is much more difficult to do in island or more rural communities. What are your views on some of the legal disqualifications from standing to be a councillor? Are they appropriate, given that the legislation on that was set out in the 1970s?

Councillor Morrison touched briefly on how the role of a councillor and the responsibilities and burdens on councillors have changed over the past 15 years. Will you expand on that and, given that context of changes, reflect on whether it is even remotely sustainable for councillors to continue on the current levels of pay?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported findings of an independent review of the cladding remediation programme that “successful delivery of the project is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent”. (S6T-00933)

I will aim to feed back to the cabinet secretary the cases that I have been receiving. It has been difficult to do so because those who have contacted me are generally not my constituents; they are primarily home owners in the Edinburgh area. However, I will forward their concerns. I also note that, in her statement in May, the cabinet secretary promised a cross-party briefing, which, had it been forthcoming, could have provided a platform for us to share constituents’ concerns.

The documents that have been released also confirm that the cabinet secretary herself set a deadline of September for establishing an accord with house builders. We are now into November. Where is that agreement with developers?

With Julie James, the minister who is responsible for this area in the Welsh Government, the cabinet secretary wrote to the house-building sector, saying that they saw

“no reason why the Accord and Pact cannot be agreed”

over the summer, after the change in United Kingdom Government roles. Last month, the Welsh Government confirmed that it had signed up Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and other builders to its pact. What can the Scottish Government say about the developers that it has signed up to its accord? What contribution will they make towards remediation? For the sake of home owners, another update to Parliament by means of a statement from the cabinet secretary would definitely be helpful.

The idea that the Government has been delivering on the cladding remediation programme is farcical. Reports confirm that home owners have been given nothing more than the runaround. Risks are unmanaged, there is no plan, the damning verdict is that whatever comes next is unclear, and successful delivery is in doubt.

If there was no plan in July, that calls into question whether the statement that the cabinet secretary made in May was even accurate. All summer, I was contacted by families who were worried sick that they were living in unsafe homes that they cannot escape, because they cannot sell or remortgage. In some cases, they cannot even secure insurance.

I say to the cabinet secretary that barely a building has been made safe. The documents point out that just one of the 26 buildings in the pilot scheme is expected to be given the green light for selling or remortgaging. Does she agree that it is unacceptable that the families who contacted me over the summer have been left in absolute despair? They need to hear an update urgently.

We have come to the chamber again and again to give policy suggestions around income that the Government could bring in to fund those measures. Only in June, Labour and SNP members voted in favour of clawing back the £400 energy supplement for second homes, in particular in order to target that money at cost of living measures. The Government agreed to do that and all its back benchers supported it. However, we have seen nothing—there has been no action on that £400 supplement, which is going to second home owners but which could be going into the pockets of those who need it most. There has been no action at all. We have come again and again with suggestions.

I did not say that that was in the gift of the Scottish Government. I set out a series of policies that were dismissed and then adopted by the UK and Scottish Governments. However, I should point out that they were also dismissed by, and then supported by, Scottish National Party MPs at Westminster. Perhaps that escaped the member.

For months now, people who were managing have found themselves pushed to the brink with repeated financial shocks. Food costs, heating bills, fuel costs, spiralling rents and now mortgages keep on going in one direction, and that is up.

Our plan detailed interventions that would make a real difference to families in Scotland, so we are returning to the chamber to call on the Scottish Government to take further action.

I want to be clear that the unprecedented chaos that has been unleashed on the UK by the Tories at a time when we need stability the most means that this winter will be longer and harder than any of us expected when we put forward our cost of living plan in August. The Conservatives’ disastrous mini-budget crashed the pound and accelerated the rise in costs that families are having to bear.

The Food & Drink Federation put food ingredient inflation at 30 per cent, and because imports are traded in dollars, non-European Union imports have become more expensive.

Even now, the reality of the situation, including vital information about the rate at which pensioners and people on benefits will have their payments uprated, will not be known until 17 November.

The Deputy First Minister—who is not here—recently tweeted that he would not have to recalculate his budget review, because he never expected the mini-budget Barnett consequentials to ever materialise. If it is the case that no recalculation is required, the Government could bring forward its own statement.

Our motion returns to the cost of living plan to help those in need. It calls for the cancelling of school meals debt, increased funding for money advice services and a top-up to the welfare fund—all of which, for the interest of those who have a concern about what this Parliament and Government can do, is within this Parliament’s gift. Those measures are firmly within the gift of this Government and could have a real and substantial impact on people’s lives.

When I speak to council leaders, all they say to me is, “We have heard about this and we have heard nothing more from Government about how we implement it.” They are desperate to get on with the job and to take in that extra money, which could be going into the pockets of those who need it most. They are simply waiting for the Government to tell them how to do that.

We have set out areas where we think that the Scottish Government should step up—on cancelling school meals debt, on topping up the welfare fund and on support for advice services. We have come to the Parliament regularly to speak about how those steps could be funded through better income generation and by cutting out the waste that this Government seems to grow more of than it does support for those who need it most.

People are absolutely sick of the chaos that they see going on in the UK Government. They are sick of seeing it push their bills only one way, which is up and up and up. They want to see more action, and there is action that can be taken that is within the gift of this Government. People want that reassurance, and they want it now.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that inflation again reached 10.1% in September 2022, driven by rising food prices and energy bills; condemns the mini-budget set out by the UK Government, and recognises that the cost of living pressures that households are facing will be exacerbated by the economic damage it caused; believes that the priority for every government must be preventing further instability and addressing the cost of living; considers that there is more action that could be taken by the Scottish Government, including the cancellation of school meals debt, increased funding for money advice services and a top up to the welfare fund; remains deeply concerned about households in Scotland that are struggling to make ends meet over the winter, and calls, therefore, in the interests of transparency, for the Deputy First Minister to set out the outcome of the Emergency Budget Review to Parliament as a matter of urgency.